Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Performance::NumericPredicate cop #440

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

miry
Copy link

@miry miry commented Feb 6, 2024

Performance::NumericPredicate cop identifies places where numeric uses predicates like positive?, negative? and for some cases zero? should be converted to compare operator.

The Performance::NumericPredicate cop is added to identify instances where numeric predicates such as positive?, negative?, and occasionally zero? should be replaced with comparison operators for improved efficiency.

Predicates incur a performance overhead by executing a method before comparison. A small benchmark comparison between using a comparison operator (> 0) and positive? illustrates the performance difference:

x.report("compare with 0") { arr.each {|i| i > 0 } }
x.report("positive?") { arr.each {|i| i.positive? } }

Benchmark results on Ruby 3.3.0 (with YJIT) indicate a significant performance gain when using the comparison operator:

ruby 3.3.0 (2023-12-25 revision 5124f9ac75) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23]
Warming up --------------------------------------
      compare with 0     1.000 i/100ms
           positive?     1.000 i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
      compare with 0      3.153 (± 0.0%) i/s -     95.000 in  30.132600s
           positive?      2.397 (± 0.0%) i/s -     72.000 in  30.042688s

Comparison:
      compare with 0:        3.2 i/s
           positive?:        2.4 i/s - 1.32x  slower

This cop is unsafe because it cannot be guaranteed that the receiver is Number and could be noisy.


Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:

  • The PR relates to only one subject with a clear title and description in grammatically correct, complete sentences.
  • Wrote good commit messages.
  • Commit message starts with [Fix #issue-number] (if the related issue exists).
  • Feature branch is up-to-date with master (if not - rebase it).
  • Squashed related commits together.
  • Added tests.
  • Ran bundle exec rake default. It executes all tests and runs RuboCop on its own code.
  • Added an entry (file) to the changelog folder named {change_type}_{change_description}.md if the new code introduces user-observable changes. See changelog entry format for details.

Performance::NumericPredicate cop identifies places where numeric uses predicates like
`positive?`, `negative?` and for some cases `zero?` should be converted to compare operator.

The `Performance::NumericPredicate` cop is added to identify instances where numeric predicates
such as `positive?`, `negative?`, and occasionally `zero?` should be replaced
with comparison operators for improved efficiency.

Predicates incur a performance overhead by executing a method before comparison.
A small benchmark comparison between using a comparison operator (`> 0`) and `positive?` illustrates the performance difference:

```ruby
x.report("compare with 0") { arr.each {|i| i > 0 } }
x.report("positive?") { arr.each {|i| i.positive? } }
```

Benchmark results on Ruby 3.3.0 (with YJIT) indicate a significant performance gain when using the comparison operator:

```
ruby 3.3.0 (2023-12-25 revision 5124f9ac75) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23]
Warming up --------------------------------------
      compare with 0     1.000 i/100ms
           positive?     1.000 i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
      compare with 0      3.153 (± 0.0%) i/s -     95.000 in  30.132600s
           positive?      2.397 (± 0.0%) i/s -     72.000 in  30.042688s

Comparison:
      compare with 0:        3.2 i/s
           positive?:        2.4 i/s - 1.32x  slower
```

This cop is unsafe because it cannot be guaranteed that the receiver is Number and could be noisy.

Signed-off-by: Michael Nikitochkin <michael.nikitochkin@gmx.net>
REPLACEMENTS = { negative?: '<', positive?: '>', zero?: '==' }.freeze

def_node_matcher :num_predicate?, <<~PATTERN
(send $numeric_type? ${:negative? :positive? :zero?})
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this also look for nonzero?

@Earlopain
Copy link
Contributor

This is just Style/NumericPredicate, is it not? It's configured for predicates by default so it would say that they will flip-flop between each other if not handled specifically. I'm also not sure if its worth the effort to duplicate a cop for what should basically be a different config value.

@miry
Copy link
Author

miry commented Sep 14, 2024

@Earlopain Are there any established practices for handling conflicts between rubocop cops and performance cops?
I wonder, if there is a way to check the RuboCop configuration to ensure that the performance-related cops are enabled.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants